Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
this is entirely dependent on context. in your livingroom watching television, you're right.
in the context of what is supposed to be a democratic debate, however, emotional responses are catastrophic. they can be compelling but they add nothing but distortions to the questions at hand; they can be persuasive, but they do not operate on the same grounds. emotional responses are not amenable to argument. they are not argument. so they are not deliberation. so they are not part of a democratic process. they are anti-democratic in the context of a deliberation--they short-circuit the process. they impede decision-making. they prevent consensus. they are noise that dissolves signals.
and in a functional democratic process, such responses are excluded by the rules of the game.
what the right demonstrates through it's actions is that they do not know even the most basic rules of democratic process.
what the right demonstrates is that they know they cannot win a rational argument on this topic and so their only option is to stop the process itself.
but the style of political philosophy that's crept into conservative discourse has nothing but contempt for actual democracy anyway. it is built around the need for a Leader to enter the fray in the context of a State of Exception to make Decisions. the style of political philosophy particular to american conservatism these days is a justification for dictatorship.
political theology.
you should read it sometime, ace.
it's by carl schmitt.
it sums you up.
that the right advances this sort of position seemingly without knowing that they're doing it is what makes then unnerving as a political movement.
for a long time, i've seen the american populist right as neo-fascist.
this is why.
|
I appreciate your response. However, I am not sure we see the issue in the same manner. I will try to illustrate with a simple example of the decision process. It can be a clear certain fact that is is raining outside. Two people can have the same fact. One decides to carry an umbrella the other does not. the decision to carry an umbrella is one based on "emotion". the decision not to carry an umbrella does not mean that the person ignored the fact, did not do research, made an error, etc, he simply made a decision. The person who decided to carry an umbrella may not understand the other persons decision, but they can not honestly say it was not based on the known facts. I think it is the same with more complex decsions as well. With health care there is no doubt there is misinformation and people promoting misinformation but there are also people against Obama's plan who are informed and do not support it based on facts. and to be for it or against it is emotional. i do not see that response as catastrophic as you describe.
I think of national decisions to wage war or to engage in peace treaties. there are facts but the decsions to act are emotion based no matter how you look at it. In my view you can not seperate emotion from human decisions. emotion drives the political process both liberal and conservative - the politician who hits the right emotional chord at the right time wins the day. In my view this is the process and does not short circuit it.
---------- Post added at 07:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:09 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood
Because while you claim to be open to the "other side's" viewpoints, your response to anything we say is always "yeah, but...." After awhile, it feels like we're talking to a wall. You refuse to see our point, so why bother debating any further?
|
When I have made errors, when I have been proven wrong, when I change my position, I have stated it. When I have questions, I normally start with my first question or first few and I normally have more. when I don't understand a point of view I let that be know as well. When I am not open on a subject I state that, just as when I will say I am open. with health care I am open to change, we have problems with our current system and I have a ton of questions and concerns regarding what is being proposed. Literally, hundreds of questions and then perhaps as many follow ups. I doubt I am unique in that regard.
---------- Post added at 07:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:20 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
"Death panels" aren't an emotional reaction, though...
|
those are not my words, they are Palin's. I have shared my issue. If you want to debate "death panels" perhaps you should contact her.